word order in the recent history of english: syntax...

Word order in the recent history

of English: syntax and processing on

the moveJavier Pérez-Guerra ([email protected])

Language Variation and Textual Categorisation Research GroupUniversity of Vigo

UCREL Corpus Research Seminar (CRS)

Lancaster University, 19 Jan 2017

Research group LVTC (Language Variation and Textual Categorisation):• diachronic variation (mainly, syntax): EModE>PDE• diatopic variation (Word Englishes)• diachronic text-type characterisation (speech-

based/purposed vs written text types)• textual linguistics (Systemic Functional Grammar)• linguistic complexity: across time, L2 English• empirical (corpus-based/driven) approach

Today

• Two pieces of research on the order of constituents in the clause (time permitting):

• verb-object vs object-verb in the recent history of English:• People love British coffee.• *?People British coffee love.

• complement-adjunct vs adjunct-complement in the history of English:

• People love British coffee in the morning.• People love in the morning British coffee.

3

Verb-object vs object-verbin the recent history of English

4

Goal

• OV [Object-Verb] in (the recent history of) English:The old men [young girls]obj married. (READE-1863,219.452)

• Kayne (1994):• VO is the basic (underlying) word order in English.• OV surfaces as the result of leftward movement.• Light elements (pronouns and particles), and not full NPs, can

undergo leftward movement.• So... OV is a marked configuration of the clause

5

Outline

• Some history• Goal• Data• Analysis of the data• Conclusions

6

Some history

Old English (OE) (Pintzuk 1991, Moerenhout and van der Wurff 2010):• Both OV and VO in OE (Fischer and van der Wurff 2006: 185:

‘OV with V2’ grammar).OV1: OvV:

þe æfre on gefeohte his handa wolde afylanwho ever in battle his hands would defile‘whoever would defile his hands in battle’(Ælfric’s Lives of Saints 25.858; Pintzuk 1999: 102)

OV2: vOV:He ne mæg his agne aberanhe not can his own support‘He cannot support his own’ (CP 7.53.1; Moerenhout and van der Wurff 2005: 85)

7

Some history

VO:Ælfric munuc gret ÆDelwærd ealdormann eadmodlice.Ælfric monk greets Æthelweard nobleman humbly‘The monk Ælfric humbly greets the nobleman Aethelweard.’ (ÆGenPref 1)

• Fischer and van der Wurff (2006: 185): “OE verbs are usually in clause-final position”, so VO would be a “complication” (“a finite verb is moved to second position in main clauses”)

• OV was frequent: with pronominal objectswith ‘particles’in subordinate clausesin main clauses with auxiliaries

8

Some history

Early Middle English (EME) (Allen 2000, Kroch and Taylor 2000, Koopman 2005):• OV and VO:

• Trips (2002): almost rigid VO• Fischer and van der Wurff (2006: 187): “steady decline” of OV• Moerenhout and van der Wurff (2000): OV is less frequent but it does

not disappear

• Kroch and Taylor (2000):• end-weight role: postverbal objects tend to be somewhat longer than

preverbal objects => pronominal objects tend to be preverbal• quantified objects tend to be preverbal

9

Some history

Late Middle English (LME) (van der Wurff 1997, Moerenhoutand van der Wurff 2000, Ingham 2002):• OV and VO, the former limited in non-literary English

exclusively to these patterns:• clauses with auxiliaries, ie. vOV (Ingham’s 2002 ‘embraciated’)• with negated/quantified objects:

Ingham (2002): 90% of OV clauses have negated objects, so Neg movement of the object to SpecNegP (between Infl and VP), a type of movement which is no longer available in PDE (Ingham 2000: 34: Neg movement is a form of A’-movement and thus optional)

• (coordinated clauses• nonfinite clauses)

./..10

Some history

../..• van der Wurff and Foster (1997a): OV survived “much more

tenaciously than suggested”; van der Wurff and Foster (1997b: 147): not merely a survival or an archaism but fulfilled an information-packaging given-new function – “OV in late ME prose is anti-triggered by new objects”.

11

Some history

Early Modern English (EModE) (van der Wurff and Foster 1997, Fischer and van der Wurff 2006, Moerenhout and van der Wurff2005: 187):• 1500–1550: “OV survives productively” (van der Wurff and

Foster 1997a: 84): 0.37/1,000w• 1550–:

• OV dwindles away outside poetry (Rissanen 1999: 267: “exceptional”)

• van der Wurff and Foster (1997a): only 42% with pronominal objects, so... *given-new strategy (“the association between OVand pronominal objects seem to be lost in the course of time”, p.451)

12

Some history

Present-Day English (PDE):• van der Wurff and Foster (1997b): OV is an archaism• Takizawa (2012): OV (only with make): 79 examples in the

Bank of English (520 mio words)

13

Goal

• (initially:) OV in the recent history of English: EModE, LModE (and PDE)

• data from larger balanced multi-genre corpora:• previous studies were based on genre-specific corpora (eg. letters) or

on small corpora• importance of balance since the distribution of OV is very different

across genres – eg. in prose and in poetry in 14th and 15th century English:

Foster and van der Wurff (1995):~1340: OV is 6 times more frequent in poetry~1400: OV is 10 times more frequent in poetry~1470: OV is 20 times more frequent in poetry

• application of a widely accepted statistical model

21

Data

• Corpora:• for Early Modern English (EModE; 1500-1710), the Penn-Helsinki

Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English or PPCEME – 1,737,853 words from the Helsinki directories of the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English, plus two supplements (Kroch et al. 2004)

• for (Late) Modern English (LModE; 1700-1914), the Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English or PPCMBE – 948,895 words (Kroch et al. 2010)

22

Datanode: IP*

query: ((IP* idoms *SBJ)

AND (IP* idoms *OB*|CP-THT|CP-QUE)

AND (IP* idoms VA*|VB*|BA*|BE*|DA*|DO*|HA*|HV*)

AND (*SBJ precedes VA*|VB*|BA*|BE*|DA*|DO*|HA*|HV*)

AND (*SBJ precedes *OB*|CP-THT|CP-QUE)

AND (*OB*|CP-THT|CP-QUE precedes VA*|VB*|BA*|BE*|DA*|DO*|HA*|HV*))

• CP-THT (eg. Craig (that) it was going to rain in Lancaster announced), not bracketed as OB

• CP-QUE (eg. Craig when it is going to rain asked), not bracketed as OB• participles: BA (of be), DA (of do), HA (of have), VA (of other verbs)• verbs other than participles: BE, DO, HV, VB

23

Data

• OV frequencies

26

examples words nf/1,000w

EModE1 1500-1569 165 567,795 0.29

EModE2 1570-1639 60 628,463 0.10

EModE3 1640-1710 9 541,595 0.02

LModE1 1700-1769 2 298,764 0.01

LModE2 1770-1839 368,804 0.00

LModE3 1840-1914 1 281,327 0.00

Data

• OV frequencies

[1] Moerenhout and van der Wurff (2000), Paston Letters[2] Foster and van der Wurff (1995)27

nf/1,000w source1330-1380 1.44 [2]1378-1400 0.71 [1]1421-1442 0.57 [1]1442-1479 0.30 [1]EModE1 0.29EModE2 0.10EModE3 0.02LModE1 0.01LModE2 0.00LModE3 0.00

Data

• OV frequencies

n.f./1,000w28

00,20,40,60,8

11,21,41,6

Data

So... (definitive goal:) focus on EModE. RQ: forces shaping OV in EModE

• Determining the EModE database size:• examples of OV in PPCEME: 234• examples of VO in PPCEME: 49,047• examples VO+OV in PPCEME: 49,281• R (The R Project for Statistical Computing, https://www.

r-project.org): function ‘n.for.survey’ (library epiDisplay) to determine the min. database size:

n.for.survey(p=.08, delta=.02, popsize=49281, alpha=0.05)Sample size = 697 (min.)

29

Analysis of the data

• textual:• genre

• linguistic:• patterns• co-occurrence with auxiliaries• discontinuity• particles• finiteness• main/subordinate clause• (c/)overt subject• subject length

• object length• category of object

• semantic, discourse-related:• quantified objects• negated objects

30

• Determining the (initial) variables:


Genre (based on Culpeper and Kytö 2010):

31

writ writing-based/purposed/like educ-treatisehistorylawscience-medicinescience-othertraveloguebiography-autobiography-otherfictionhandbook-other

speech speech-based/purposed/related diary-privdrama-comedyletters-non-privletters-privproceeding-trialssermon

phil philosophy


VO patterns• SVO:

• SVO: but the Trinity keep you. (APLUMPT-E1-H,185.85)• SvVO: when he was building that admirable worke of his tombe (ARMIN-E2-

H,46.410)• SVXO: He had no sooner the liberty of his tongue, but that he curst and swore

like a diuel: (DELONEY-E2-P2,51.297 )• SvVXO: but by her cheeks you might find guilty Gilbert (ARMIN-E2-P2,39.298)• SvXVO: the middle letter doth alwayes signifie the Angle propounded,

(BLUNDEV-E2-P2,57V.18)• SvXvVO: that I shoulde thus haue refused the oth. (MORELET2-E1-H,506.44)• SvXVXO: And if any one shall throughly weigh in his Mind the Force and

Energy of the one and of the other, (BOETHPR-E3-H,191.376)

32


VO patterns• SVO:

• SXvVO: I truly can accuse you of none. (THOWARD2-E2-P2,101.55)• SXVXO: And in this yere the kynge at the Request of the duke of Orleaunce sent

ouer the foresayd duke his sone (FABYAN-E1-H,174V.C2.196)

• inverted subjects:• VSO: Ford. Has Page any braines? (SHAKESP-E2-P1,49,C1.876)• vSVO: And thus do the best Divines expound the Place. (JUDALL-E2-

P2,1,175.312)• vSVXO: L. C. J. Did my Lady Lisle ask you that Question? (LISLE-E3-

P2,4.118.337)• vSXVO: should we therefore judg those who retain their Sight to be blind also?

(BOETHPR-E3-H,183.330)

33


VO patterns• subjectless:

• 0VO: and 0 saw great danger on both hands: (BURNETCHA-E3-P1,2,171.260)• 0vVO: and 0 will emploie all other meanes possible, (EDMONDES-E2-H,394.23)• 0VXO: and 0 kepe close such matters. (LATIMER-E1-H,38L.351)• 0vXVO: and would eat as much at one time as 0 might very well serve four or

five ordinary men, (PENNY-E3-P1,33.196)

34


OV patterns• OV:

• SOV: This profe I trow may serue, though I no word spoke. (STEVENSO-E1-H,54.218)

• SOXV: God all Rules by goodnes order (BOETHEL-E2-P2,71.256)• SXOV: who for like faulte out of the citie the name of kings abolisshed.

(BOETHEL-E2-P1,34.464)• SXOXV: And Goodlucke I dare sweare, your witte therin would low. (UDALL-E1-

P2,L1563.786)

35


OV patterns• vOV:

• SvOV: alledging that he hath nothing done, (WOLSEY-E1-H,2.2,21.17)• SvOXV: I shall hir no more see. (UDALL-E1-H,L.1111.442)• SvXOV: We should therat such a sporte and pastime haue founde, (UDALL-E1-

P2,L1563.780)• SXvOV: Here Martin luther for his shrewed brayne wyll some thyng wrastell

agaynst vs. (FISHER-E1-P2,337.68)

• vOV_inversion:• vSOV: C. Cust. Will ye my tale breake? (UDALL-E1-P2,L1469.671)• vSOXV: T. Trusty. Do you that part wel play (UDALL-E1-P2,L1594.797)• vSXOV: So shall we pleasantly bothe the tyme beguile now, And eke dispatche

all our workes ere we can tell how. (UDALL-E1-H,L.297.196)

36


OV patterns• subjectless:

• 0OV: nor also 0 none can haue. (MORERIC-E1-P1,32.135)• 0OXV: and 0 hym myserably in his Chaumbre slewe (FABYAN-E1-H,170R.C1.85)• 0vOV: But I woulde be auenged in the meane space, On that vile scribler, that

0 did my wowyng disgrace. (UDALL-E1-H,L.1145.493)• 0XOV: And 0 by and by them opened, euen as they were before, (STEVENSO-

E1-H,14.147)• 0XvOV: ich trust 0 soone shalt it see (STEVENSO-E1-P1,33.539)

37


Pattern simplification• vV > V, to avoid interaction with auxiliary/no_aux• SXv or SXV > S, since we are focusing on [(v)V...O]• No difference is made between subjectless examples and

those with subjects to avoid interaction with subj/subjectless• verb-first examples will not be considered specific patterns

(interrogatives, exclamatives, inversions) to avoid interaction with v_first/non-v_first

• VXO>VO, to avoid interaction with continuous/discontinuous

38


Pattern simplification• OV: collinearity with response variable (ov)• VO: collinearity with response variable (vo)• vOV: collinearity with response variable (ov) and auxiliary• vXOV: only partial collinearity with response variable (ov)• vXVO: only partial collinearity with response variable (vo)To avoid collinearity with the response variable (ov/vo) and the variable auxiliary, the list of patterns were replaced with the variable:• intervening material following v (mat): vXVO, vXOV• no intervening material following v (no_mat)39


Auxiliary (v)• auxiliary• no_aux

Continuous (X, between V and O [VXO], or O and V [OXV])• continuous• discontinuous

Verb-first:• v_first• non-v_first40


Particles• And there was a Justice of peace had taken away much of

frends goods: (FOX-E3-P2,109.140)

Finiteness• finite• infinitive: And thus I desyre our Lorde to have you in his moste

gratious tuytion. (GCROMW-E1-P1,209.9)• ing clause: The Priest and the Tanner seeing the Taylor, mused

what hee made there: (DELONEY-E2-P1,16.253)• (no examples of ed clauses in the corpus)41


Main/Subordinate/Coordinated clause• main• subordinate: for I thinke so God me mende, This will proue

some foolishe matter in the ende. (UDALL-E1-P2,L751.17)• coordination: “Then that is the top of felicitie, that stowtly

rules & 0 gently all disposith.” (BOETHEL-E2-P2,71.264)

(C/)Overt subject• with overt subject• subjectless

42


Subject length (ordinalisation>factorising)• average: 0-2 words (771 examples)• long: 3-6 words (89 examples)• very long: 7-22 words (13 examples)

Object length (ordinalisation>factorising)• average: 1-3 words (628 examples)• long: 4-9 words (187 examples)• very long: 10-32 words (45 examples)

43


Quantified object• definite• indefinite (inc. zero)• cardinal• ordinal

Negated object• non-negated• negated: M. Mery. Nay fayth ye shall promise that he shall no

harme haue, (UDALL-E1-H,L.1179.505)

44


Category of object• pronominal: only a non-wh pronoun (me, I, mine)• NP: NP including a noun• other: eg. clauses (, wh-elements)

45


• response variable: ov/vo• (definitive) variables:

• textual:• genre (simplified)

• linguistic:• intervening material• co-occurrence with auxiliaries• discontinuity• particles• finiteness• main/subordinate clause• (c/)overt subject• subject length (ordinal)

• object length (ordinal)• category of object

• semantic, discourse-related:• quantified objects• negated objects

46

Analysis of the dataLogistic regression analysis: R, functions glm and lmr

47

Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) auxiliary[T.no_aux] -1.064e+00 2.342e-01 -4.543 5.55e-06 ***continuous[T.discontinuous] 3.563e-01 3.702e-01 0.962 0.335903 finiteness[T.finite] -1.596e+01 1.075e+04 -0.001 0.998816 finiteness[T.inf] -1.884e+01 1.075e+04 -0.002 0.998602 finiteness[T.ing] -1.748e+01 1.075e+04 -0.002 0.998703 genre2[T.speech] -1.506e+00 3.452e-01 -4.363 1.28e-05 ***genre2[T.writ] -3.211e+00 3.955e-01 -8.118 4.72e-16 ***main_sub[T.main] 4.049e-01 3.430e-01 1.180 0.237833 main_sub[T.sub] 8.972e-01 3.332e-01 2.693 0.007090 ** mat[T.no_mat] 1.935e+00 5.832e-01 3.317 0.000908 ***neg_obj[T.non-neg] -2.473e+00 5.320e-01 -4.648 3.34e-06 ***obj_length -2.698e-01 8.251e-02 -3.270 0.001076 ** object[T.other] -1.602e+01 9.188e+02 -0.017 0.986089 object[T.pro] 8.371e-01 2.684e-01 3.119 0.001818 ** particles[T.particles] -2.378e+00 1.114e+00 -2.135 0.032736 * quantif_obj2[T.definite] 1.851e+01 1.960e+03 0.009 0.992468 quantif_obj2[T.indefinite] 1.650e+01 1.960e+03 0.008 0.993283 subj_length 2.294e-01 8.593e-02 2.670 0.007590 ** subjectless[T.subjectless] 2.110e+00 3.746e-01 5.631 1.79e-08 ***v_first[T.v_first] -1.806e+01 1.789e+03 -0.010 0.991946 Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Analysis of the dataLogistic regression analysis: R, functions glm and lmr

48

Pr(>|Z|)genre <0.0001 neg_obj <0.0001 auxiliary 0.0001 interv. material 0.0005obj_length 0.0015 object 0.0046particles 0.0327 main_subord 0.4818 subj_length 0.5118 continuous 0.5132 verb_first 0.8505 quantif_obj 0.8570 finiteness 0.9796

Discrimination indexes:• (Nagelkerke) R2=0.540

(very good if >.5)• C (Concordance)=0.903

(outstanding if >.9)

Analysis of the dataVariable genre

written vs speech: χ2(1)=73.73, p<.0001speech vs phil: χ2(1)=12.04, p=.0003

49

314

30239

24

14846

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

written speech phil

vo ov

Analysis of the dataVariable negated object

χ2(1)=7.64, p=.0057

50

13

642

13

205

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

negated non-negated

vo ov

Analysis of the dataVariable auxiliary

χ2(1)=25.05, p<.0001

51

244411

12494

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

auxiliary no_auxiliary

vo ov

Analysis of the dataVariable intervening material

χ2(1)=11.18, p=.0008

52

58597

4214

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

interv_material no_material

vo ov

Analysis of the dataVariable object length

average vs long: χ2(1)=36.21, p<.0001long vs very_long: Fischer(1), p(two-tailed)=.4221

53

430170 55

19817 3

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

average long very_long

vo ov

Analysis of the dataVariable object length (recodified)

54

430225

19820

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

average *average

vo ov

Analysis of the dataVariable object type

pro vs NP: χ2(1)=21.5, p<.0001

55

134429

92

89129

0

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

pro NP other

vo ov

Summary and conclusions

• Goal (I): study of OV in the recent history of English• Frequency: statistically marginal in EModE =>

=> lack of evidence in LModE• Goal (II): statistical analysis of the forces favouring OV in

EModE• Data: PPCEME

• OV: 218 examples (234 inc. Bible)• VO: 655 randomised examples

• Analysis of 13 variables• Logistic regression analysis: 6 sufficiently explanatory variables

57

Summary and conclusions

• OV is favoured in speech-based/related/purposed and ‘speechy’ (inc. Philosophy) text types.

• OV is favoured by negated objects.• OV is favoured by auxiliaries in the verbal group.• OV is disfavoured by lexical material between v and V/O

(vXVO, vXOV).• OV is favoured by short and average (in length) objects.• OV is favoured by pronominal objects.

58

Summary and conclusions(i) Textual (performance) issue as a trigger of OV: the speechier, the greater the frequency of OV(ii) Prominence of end-weight as the triggering force of OV: preference for reduced lexical complexity of the object:

• objects:• shorter objects• pronominal objects

• verbal groups:• with auxiliaries (short objects and ‘expanded’ verbal groups)• without intervening material between auxiliary and rest of the

predicate (vXOV) (maybe reinforces the desired effect of shortening of the object or the non-verbal part of the predicate)

• So... OV in EModE already accommodated within the principles ruling performance in Modern English (end-weight).59

Complement-adjunct vs adjunct-complementin the history of English

67

Outline

• Assumptions• Goals• Data• Analysis of the data:

• complements-first• end-weight

• Conclusions and further research• References

68

Assumptions

• Dependents in phrases: complements vs adjuncts• Complements:

• reserved positions in the clause:Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 225): “[c]omplements are more restricted than most adjuncts as to what positions they can occupy in the clause. In general, there is a basic or default position for a given kind of complement”• semantically selected or subcategorized:Matthews (2007: 187): “unit in a construction either required or specifically taken by an individual member of a lexical category”Matthews (1981: 124-127): impossibility of dropping (if dropped, then latent)

69

Assumptions

• Dependents in phrases: complements vs adjuncts• Complements:

• exclusion when the pattern is saturated• syntactic dependencies; eg. lexical restrictions or formal

determination (Greenbaum et al. 1996: 76): {deal, compliance} + with-PP; {assume, certain, hypothesis} + that-clause

• Adjuncts:• loose semantic connection between the adjunct and the head =>

not required

70

Assumptions

• Distribution of complements and adjuncts is governed by:

• syntactic rule: complements precede non-complements (complements-first)

• Quirk et al. (1985: 49-50): ‘Complements first’• Hawkins (2007): ‘Arguments precede X’

72

Assumptions

• processing: incremental constructionalisation of constituents (end-weight):

• Quirk et al. (1985: 1398): End-weight• Hawkins’ (2004, 2007) ‘Minimize Domains (MiD)’: preference for

short-long designs:“Given two or more categories A, B, [...] related by a grammatical rule R of combination and/or dependency, the human processor prefers to minimize the distance between them within the smallest surface structure domain sufficient for the processing of R.” (Hawkins 2004: 234)“[g]iven a structure {A, X, B} (...), the more relations of combinations or dependency that link B to A, the smaller will be the size and complexity of X” (Hawkins 2004: 37)

73

Assumptions

• processing: incremental constructionalisation of constituents (end-weight):

• Temperly (2007: 315): “If a word has multiple dependent constituents and there is a choice as to their ordering, the shorter one(s) should be placed closer to the parent head”

• Psycolinguistic argument:Hawkins (2001: 7): “Less demands are made on working memory and there is less expenditure of effort in reaching these structural definitions” (similarly Wasow 2002: 32)Gibson: “syntactic predictions held in memory over longerdistances are more expensive (...), and longer distance head-dependents integrations are more expensive” (1998: 8); “eachlexical item in a structure has an activation level (...). The lexical activation decays as additional words are integrated” (2000: 11)

74

Assumptions

• Examples:(1) I would take [some spending money] [with me].(2) I would take [with me] [some spending money].

[‘Heavy NP Shift’; see Wasow (2002: 5)]

(1) is claimed to be a better performance solution than (2) on syntactic grounds (complements-first).(2) is claimed to be a better performance solution than (1) on processing grounds (MiD, end-weight).

75

Goals

• Account of the distribution of complements and adjuncts in phrases by using a corpus-driven methodology

• Connection between the distribution of complements and adjuncts in phrases and the process of word-order syntacticisation

76

dependent{ N, V, A } dependent+ +complementHead adjunct

adjunctHead complement

Data

Connection between the distribution of complements and adjuncts and the process of syntacticisation of English word order:

“loose, paratactic, ‘pragmatic’ discourse structure develop -- over time -- into tight, ‘grammaticalized’ syntactic structures” (Givón (1979: 208-209)

So.. focus on post-ME (EModE, LModE and PDE)

77

Data

• [Old English: 1.5+ million words (Old English section of the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts, with certain additions, c750–): Taylor et al. (2003) The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Prose.]

• [Middle English: 1,155,965 words (Middle English section of the Diachronic Part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts, with certain additions and deletions, 1150–1500): Kroch and Taylor (2000) Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, second edition.]

78

Data

• Early Modern English: 1,737,853 words (the Helsinki directories of the Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English plus two supplements; 1500–1710): Kroch et al. (2004) Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English.

• Late Modern English: 948,895 words (1700–1914): Kroch et al. (2010) Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English.

79

Data

• Present-Day English: approx. 2 mio words (1961–1989): The Penn Treebank 3 (1 mio words of The Brown Corpus plus 1 mio words from 1989 Wall Street Journal; Switchboard corpus excluded)

80

Data

• parsed corpora, with (almost) identical similar parsing conventions

• parsed files (.psd/.mrg), using P&P-based part-of-speech and syntactic tags

• retrieval by means of CorpusSearch (differences among corpora):

node: IP*query: (VB* iprecedes W*|QP|PP|RRC|ADJ*|ADV*|CP-*|

IP-SUB)AND (W*|QP|PP|RRC|ADJ*|ADV*|CP-*|IP-SUB iprecedes NP-OB*)

• (extensive) manual revision81

Data

but, if you approve of this, if you please to lett me know y=r= pleasure, I will tell it M=r= Isaac.(ANHATTON-E3-H,2,214.41)

82

((IP-MAT (CONJ but)(, ,)(PP (P if)

(CP-ADV (C 0)(IP-SUB (NP-SBJ (PRO you))

(VBP approve)(PP (P of)

(NP (D this))))))(, ,)(PP (P if)

(CP-ADV (C 0)(IP-SUB (NP-SBJ (PRO you))

(VBP please)(IP-INF (TO to)

(VB lett)(IP-INF (NP-SBJ (PRO me))

(VB know)(NP-OB1 (PRO$ y=r=)

(Npleasure)))))))(, ,)(NP-SBJ (PRO I))(MD will)(VB tell)(NP-OB1 (PRO it))(NP-OB2 (NPR M=r=) (NPR Isaac))(. .))

83

Data

VPs (see also Pérez-Guerra 2016)• verb group immediately precedes an adjunct, and the adjunct

immediately precedes a complement (object)neither will I againe smite {any more} {euery thing liuing}, as I haue done. (AUTHOLD-E2-H,VIII,20G.466) [QP + OBJ]and sitting in some place, where no man shall prompe him, by him self, let him translate {into Englishe} {his former lesson}. (ASCH-E1-H,1V.22) [PP + OBJ]Lisle. My Lord, this Fellow that now speaks against me, broke {open} {my Trunk}, (LISLE-E3-H,IV,120C1.203) [Adjective + OBJ]Moreouer, there is no one thing, that hath more, either dulled the wittes, or taken {awaye} {the will of children from learning}, then the care they haue, to satisfie their masters, in making of latines. (ASCH-E1-H,1R.9) [Adverb + OBJ]

84

Data

VPs• verb group immediately precedes a complement (object), and

the complement (object) immediately precedes an adjunctWill tels {the king} {how Terrils Frith was inclosed}. (ARMIN-E2-H,44.338) [OBJ + W*]so this time will trouble {y=r= Losp} {no more} w=th= y=r= most obedient, duttyful daughter, A. Nottingham. (ANHATTON-E3-H,2,212.29) [OBJ + QP]I thoughte I wolde take {some spendyng money} {wyth me} (MERRYTAL-E1-H,31.148) [OBJ + PP]and cut {it} {not so close to the Body as to hurt it}, nor yet so long that it be a Stump, (LANGF-E3-H,122.269) [OBJ + AdjectiveP]

85

Data

VPs

But my Brother understood {the matter} {aright} (HOXINDEN-1660-E3-H,280.162) [OBJ + Adverb]The post served {me} {just as it did y=r= Losp}. (ANHATTON-E3-H,2,211.4) [OBJ + CP]$I $'ll ply {him} {that way}, (FARQUHAR-E3-H,9.326) [OBJ + NP-Adverb]

86

Data

VPs

Beda writes {that he was dead long before}, {although if the time of his sitting Archbishop be right computed sixteen years, he must survive this action}. (MILTON-E3-H,X,150.77, 1670) [that cl + concessive adjunct]

Also I read {in Iohannes Libaulty, his Booke Intituled Le Meson Rustick, and also in other Learned Writers}, {that the dung of a Cow heated vnder the Ashes, betwixt Wine or Colwort leaues, & mingled with vineger, hath the property to bring Scrophulous swellings to ripenes, &c}. (CLOWES-E2-H,26.212, 1602) [place adjunct + that cl]

87

Data

NPs (see Pérez-Guerra 2016)• noun immediately precedes an adjunct, and the adjunct

immediately precedes a complement ((that- or) infinitive clause)

[The master shewyng us that by] neglygence {of some} {to belay the haylers}, (MADOX-E2-P1,112.434) [PP + IP]in mind of the great Obligation {that lies on them} {to live sutably to their Profession:} (BURNETROC-E3-P2,122.170) [rel cl + IP]

88

Data

NPs• noun immediately precedes a complement ((that- or) infinitive

clause), and the complement immediately precedes an adjunct

[King James sent a Person down to him, with] Offers {to mitigate his Fine upon Conditions of ready Payment}, {to which his Lordship reply'd, that if his Majesty pleas'd to allow him a little longer time, he would rather chuse to play double or quit with him}: (CIBBER-1740,44.134) [IP + rel cl]

89

Data

NPsthe duke had got a solemn promise {of the king} {that he would never speak to him of religion}. (BURNETCHA-E3-P2,2,180.98) [PP + that cl][He would not hearken to this, which made me inclined to believe] a report {I had heard}, {that the duke had got a solemn promise of the king that he would never speak to him of religion}. (BURNETCHA-E3-P2,2,180.98) [rel cl + that cl]And there was a feeling {by no means uncommon, and very deadly}, {that India would be lost for ever, and with it all the glory of England}. (TROLLOPE-1882,177.356) [AdjectiveP + that cl]There is a wise saying {that nine-tenths of the noble work done in the world is drudgery}, {which is often misused as if it meant that nine-tenths of the drudgery done in the world is noble work}. (BENSON-1908,46.109) [that cl + rel cl]

90

Data

APs (see Pérez-Guerra 2016)• adjective immediately precedes an adjunct, and the adjunct

immediately precedes a complement ((that- or) infinitive clause)

[And therefore the quickest wittes commonlie may proue the best Poetes, but not the wisest Orators:] readie {of tonge} {to speak boldlie}, (ASCH-E1-P1,4V.34) [PP + IP]

91

Data

APs• adjective immediately precedes a complement ((that- or)

infinitive clause), and the complement immediately precedes an adjunct

[none was] more willing {to resign} {than she}. (BEHN-E3-P1,163.135) [IP + than cl][I haue beene as] careful {to please her} {as euer I was to please mine own mother}, (GIFFORD-E2-H,B1R.60) [IP + as cl][He told him they were] fully resolv’d {to dye for their Country}, and ready {to fight it out to the last Man, if Occasion requir’d,} {at which Xerxes derided him, as he did before when he spake of the Valour of his Country-men; (HIND-1707,310.144) [IP + rel cl]

92

Data

APs[yea I am] sorie, {with all my harte}, {that they be giuen no more to riding, then they be}: (ASCH-E1-P1,10R.186) [PP + that cl]For we are no less certain {that there is a great Town called Constantinople, the seat of the Ottoman Empire}, {than that there is another called London}. (BURNETROC-E3-P1,79.231) [that cl + than cl]

93

Analysis of the data: complements-first

Analysis of the data: complements-first• Pérez-Guerra (2016):

• object + adjunct:[I thoughte] I wolde take [some spendyng money]object [wythme]adjunct (MERRYTAL-E1-H,31.148) [complement plus adjunct in a VP]• adjunct + object:[and sitting in some place, where no man shall prompe him, by him self,] let him translate [into Englishe]adjunct [his former lesson]object. (ASCH-E1-H,1V.22) [adjunct plus complement in a VP]

99


• Statistical significance for full variation: yes (P<.0001)• Statistical significance for variation OE>ME: no (P=0.0949)• Statistical significance for variation ME>EModE: yes (P<.0001)• Statistical significance for variation EModE>ModE: yes (P<.0001)

100

Analysis of the data: complements-first

101

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

OE ME EModE ModE

verbadjectivenoun

+PDE


• ME>EModE seems to be the pivotal period as far as compliance with complements-first is concerned

• Connection type of head and compliance with complements-first:

VP > AP > NP• VPs:

• Most VPs are complement-first• Statistically significant increase of complement-first VPs

from ME to LModE• Half of the APs are complement-first in LModE• Most NPs are complement-last

103

Analysis of the data: complements-first• Another experiment:

• also focuses on complements/adjuncts but only after word-order syntacticisation, that is, after ME (ME>EModE as the pivotal period)

• focuses on only VPs• challenges the supremacy of complements-first by

investigating its plausibility with structurally long and syntactically complex complements: that clauses

104

Analysis of the data: complements-firstQuery example:

node: IP-MATquery: (IP-MAT iDoms VBP)

AND (IP-MAT iDoms CP-THT)AND (IP-MAT iDoms *P*)AND (VBP iprecedes CP-THT)AND (CP-THT iprecedes *P*)

with parsing differences among corpora

Analysis of the data: complements-first• Examples:

• Beda writesV [that he was dead long before,]that-cl [although if the time of his sitting Archbishop be right computed sixteen years, he must survive this action.]adjunct (MILTON-E3-H,X,150.77, 1670) [complement plus adjunct in a VP]

• Also I readV [in Iohannes Libaulty, his Booke Intituled Le Meson Rustick, and also in other Learned Writers,]adjunct[that the dung of a Cow heated vnder the Ashes, betwixt Wine or Colwort leaues, & mingled with vineger, hath the property to bring Scrophulous swellings to ripenes, &c.]that-cl(CLOWES-E2-H,26.212, 1602) [adjunct plus complement in a VP]

Analysis of the data: VPs

• Incidence of the type of complement:

only that-clauses (this experiment) all types of complements (objects) andadjuncts (Pérez-Guerra 2016)

• So... end-weight is a crucial factor

109

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

EModE LModE PDE

complement-first complement-last


• So… tension between end-weight and compl-first• VPs:

• with non-clausal objects, complements-first is the leading force in VPs, and increasing (70>+80% are compl-first)

• with clausal (that cl) objects, complement-last is the leading design in VPs, and decreasing (<4% are compl-first in PDE)

• NPs:• with clausal (that and infinitive cl) complements,

complement-last is the leading design (0% are complement-first in PDE)

115

Analysis of the data: end-weight

116

Analysis of the data: end-weight• Stowell (2006: 239):

“it has consistently proved to be virtually impossible to define ‘heaviness’ in a satisfactory way”

• For summaries of proposals, see Wasow (1997) and Pérez-Guerra and Martínez-Insua (2010).

117

Analysis of the data: end-weight• Metric:

• Gries (2003: 83-84): no. of syllables, no. of words, no. of morphemes, with very similar results

• Yaruss (1999: 339): “very strong, positive, significant correlations (...) among measures of length in words, syllables, morphemes, and clausal constituents”

• Szmrecsányi (2004: 1038): “determining length in words (...) is by all means (...) nearly as accurate as the most sophisticated and cognitively, conceptually, or even psychologically ‘more real’ methods”

• Shih and Grafmiller (2011): no. of words is a sufficient proxy for weight

118

Analysis of the data: end-weight• Times 1st dependent is longer than 2nd in VPs

119

1,11

2,112,41

2,73

0,23 0,20 0,20 0,210,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

ME EModE LModE PDE


Analysis of the data: end-weight• Times 1st dependent is longer than 2nd in NPs

120

4,25

5,28

2,01

0,43 0,31 0,44 0,360,00

1,00

2,00

3,00

4,00

5,00

6,00

ME EModE LModE PDE


Analysis of the data: end-weight• End-weight is a major factor only in complement-last

constructions in VPs and NPs: the 1st dependent is notoriously shorter than the 2nd dependent only in complement-last constructions.

• Most complement-first constructions do not comply with end-weight:

• VPs: 1st dependents are progressively longer across time• NPs: 1st dependents are progressively shorter across time

121

Conclusions

122

Conclusions

• Two forces:• complements-first: complement as the first dependent• end-weight: second dependent is longer

• Application to phrases: VPs, NPs and APs• This study:

• (ME -) EModE - LModE – PDE, after the syntacticisation of word order in English

• extreme scenario: (long, complex) that-clauses as complements

123

Conclusions

• Most patterns comply with end-weight (and increasing across time):

Hawkins (2000: 232): “the biggest single predictor of relative orderings (...) is (...) weight”

We cannot argue in favour of:Traugott (1992: 276): “in general the light-heavy distribution [end-weight] is no longer a major factor in English word order”

• Complements-first is still a significant force in VPs:• evidence from other complements (all types of objects)

126

Conclusions

• Complements-first is more influential in VPs (than in APs) than in NPs=> connection type of Head / complements-first (the more verbal the head is, the more likely the structure of the phrase is governed by specifically the syntactic principle of complements-first).

127

Conclusions

• VERBS ARE MORE PROTOTYPICAL HEADS THAN NOUNS• frequency: fewer intransitive Vs (23.29% in PPCMBE)

than intransitive Ns (56.04%)• paradigmatic versatility: wider with Vs

(complementation options: monotransitive, intensive, ditransitive, complex-transitive, transitive-adverbial)

• ellipsis: 4.09% of verbless VPs vs. 52.98% nounless NPs• morphological choices: number/person/tense/aspect in

V; morphology contributes to syntactic integration, a feature of headedness (Givón 1993: 23,26; Noonan 2007: 101)

128

Word order in the recent history

of English: syntax and processing on

the moveJavier Pérez-Guerra ([email protected])

Thanks!

word order in the recent history of english: syntax...

Documents